So, Will Shearwater offer Gas Integration

[drrich2]

I think it depends on what you mean by "fullest." I'd bet nobody has ever pushed a Petrel to the fullest if you mean pushing it to the point of it breaking. However, I'd bet nearly all Tech divers use it to its fullest extent if you mean in the fact that it's easy to read, customizable, runs deco algorithms, is easy to use, etc. In some ways, I use it to its fullest extent....and I'm not even 'mix certified.

I meant what % use nearly all the features it's got. People opposed to adding A.I. often use the argument - I don't want to pay for something I don't need & won't use. Yet with a powerful computer made to handle a range of environmental parameters, you're probably already paying for some things you don't need or use.

If Shearwater were to sell a "Rec only" option, it'd be no big deal to me....but their focus, specialty, and money should go towards making their bread and butter better.

This is an interesting point, easy to miss. I think some tec. divers believe for Shearwater to divert resources into developing a recreational Petrel version would somehow take away from improving the 'tec.' Petrel. Thing is, people speak of the Petrel as 'already awesome,' in different words. So I'm curious...

What further improvements/refinements/features do tec. divers desire in the Petrel?

If the answer's nothing, there's little reason not to put the effort into making a recreational version. If there are substantial technical (no pun intended) hurdles to implementing desired improvements, then I understand a fairly small company might not want to divide its focus that way.

Much as Apple views itself as trying to do a few things with excellence, vs. Microsoft's 'a hand in every pie' approach. Of course, both make a lot of money...

Richard.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

I meant what % use nearly all the features it's got. People opposed to adding A.I. often use the argument - I don't want to pay for something I don't need & won't use. Yet with a powerful computer made to handle a range of environmental parameters, you're probably already paying for some things you don't need or use.

Nope. Trimix? Check. Planning? Check. VPM? Sometimes. CCR mode? Check. OC mode? Check. Gauge mode? Every once in a while. Logging? Check. Oodles of gasses? Check. The list goes on, but I think you get the idea.

For plenty of us, it literally has everything we use and nothing we don't.

 

[Dhboner]

What he said

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Agreed.

 

[victorzamora]

I meant what % use nearly all the features it's got. People opposed to adding A.I. often use the argument - I don't want to pay for something I don't need & won't use. Yet with a powerful computer made to handle a range of environmental parameters, you're probably already paying for some things you don't need or use.

Like I said, it depends on what you mean. To me, its biggest features are the dependability, ease of use, fantastic screen, great customer support, and complete inability to lock out. I also love its ability to treat me like a rational adult and not be a babysitter.

If you mean the list like Dr Lecter meant, there are tons of divers that use the majority of its features. Mine doesn't stretch its legs as much as Dr Lecter's....but I use mine a whole lot more aggressively than most computers are capable of.

This is an interesting point, easy to miss. I think some tec. divers believe for Shearwater to divert resources into developing a recreational Petrel version would somehow take away from improving the 'tec.' Petrel. Thing is, people speak of the Petrel as 'already awesome,' in different words. So I'm curious...

What further improvements/refinements/features do tec. divers desire in the Petrel?

Smaller, lighter, better battery life, better planning onboard, transferring settings from the PC to the Petrel, etc. Plus a bunch of other things PDC experts could think of if they were spending their resources (time, money, etc) on that goal.

 

[Baron015]

I'm a technical diver. I would welcome air integration, and would use it to monitor diluent and O2. At the moment I only look at the gauges before the dive and after the dive. Gas use usually matches the plan.

I have never used gauge mode and never will. I might use rec mode on one holiday trip a year. After that the least used feature is OC mode, I have never had to bail out since I got the Petrel.

So each to their own. People like D Boner don't speak for all tech divers. Bring on AI in a future release, especially if you have already solved the reliability issues for the dive supervisor product.

 

[WarrenZ]

I think that the option of air integration would make sense if Shearwater wanted to broaden the appeal for their products. Also if someone does not want AI then turning off the reciever in the Petrel shouldnt be a problem people already turn off Closed circuit mode when diving open circuit right? Im not sure if I would use AI even if I was given the transmitters after seeing some of the Suunto ones but it would open up more of a market for them as there has been several threads recently where people were looking for essentially the petrel 2 but went to something else since they couldnt get AI with it.

 

[tbone1004]

AI as mentioned in the divecan is an entirely different concept than what most people think of when AI. You saw Bruce himself say that wireless AI isn't in the plan. So C dub, guess you can try to fire the owner of that company. You don't understand the purpose of that company, it is not a corporation out to maximize the profits, it is a small niche manufacture set out to make the best possible dive electronics out there.

The AI that could be incorporated into the Divecan, would likely be a HP quick disconnect, that plugged into the head, into a digital pressure sensor. No different than the ones used in the QD AI computers. It would output to the handset or HUD as just another data point that it would read out. That would require nothing other than a software update on the controller and monitor, but they would have to be wired in, same as they are to monitor PO2.

 

[jboneng]

The more complex any computer software is the more likely something is going to bug up or break, and less code means less bugs, that's one of the strengths of the petrel, it does the core functionality exceptionally well, without a lot of unnecessary secondary functionality, bells and whistles and chrome to potentially bug up the core functionality. The more complications that is thrown at a system the more likely one of the complication will make the core functionality unstable and the more complex the system the more complex the UI becomes. You could say "just don't use those functions", but the problem is that the code for those functions is still there, buried in the firmware making the system more complex. One of the arguments I made for the petrel when I bought one was the low complexity of the system.

 

[Lorenzoid]

The more complex any computer software is the more likely something is going to bug up or break, and less code means less bugs, that's one of the strengths of the petrel, it does the core functionality exceptionally well, without a lot of unnecessary secondary functionality, bells and whistles and chrome to potentially bug up the core functionality. The more complications that is thrown at a system the more likely one of the complication will make the core functionality unstable and the more complex the system the more complex the UI becomes. You could say "just don't use those functions", but the problem is that the code for those functions is still there, buried in the firmware making the system more complex. One of the arguments I made for the petrel when I bought one was the low complexity of the system.

In another thread, some time ago, someone made an argument along the lines that it's possible to make the code for the deco system and the code for the AI system separate or independent enough that a bug in the AI code wouldn't affect the deco system. I suppose anything is possible with enough engineering effort.